Ya really think so Sen Coburn.? You think we can't withdraw or you you think your investments in Raytheon, Bechtel ,Haliburton can't take the hit?

Thats the problem with living in the past like the Reagan worshippers love to do.- ya can't make good decisions about the present and the future.

But let me guess, Sen. Coburn- you still have stock in Halibuton, KBR,Raytheon and back Blackwater?! And you're probably investing heavily in prosthetics.Nuthin like lettin a little mistake stop you from turnin' a profit,
eh bubba?

Why the hell haven't the Republicans done this LOOONG ago?

I mean, Republican loyalty to an unlawful war, an awful president, his awful policies and to all of his awful blunders is inane. Especially after Bush lost them their prized majority in Congress.

Republicans should have thrown the whole Bush administration under the bus years ago. Then they should have dug up all of Bush's cabinet people who resigned early on, to come out in protest against the fraud Bush perpetrated on his own party.

The Republican party should be sounding the call for IMPEACHMENT.

They should have Bush and his crew so scared sh-tless about the prospect of being investigated that he AND Cheney have no choice but to resign, immediately.

This is a president that even Republican's now despise. Why don't they have the guts to denounce him as the dismal failure he has been to the Republican party, to the country and to the world?

The jig is up! We can see clearly through all 935 of your lies. Denounce this unlawful war, this unlawful administration, cut your loses, regroup and rebuild the Republican platform with integrity from the bottom, up!

I"ve gotten very tired of hearing: "If only we knew then what we know now". In fact,
lots of people saw what was coming.
On the weekend of February 15, 2003, 10 million people took part in anti-Iraq-war protests in 60 countries across the globe " including 3 million in Rome, 2 million in London (the largest protest ever in the U.K.), 2 million in Madrid, and 400,000 in New York City. I marched with 30,000 people in Seattle.
The notion that people were unaware of the lies being disseminated and the probable consequences of an Iraq invasion, is a myth. A few examples follow:
- - - -
William Pfaff / Syndicated Columnist
Seattle Times " August 9, 2002
IT"S AMATEUR HOUR FOR ADMINISTRATION HAWKS
George W. Bush is talking himself into a position where he will have to go to war, even though there is no convincing argument that war would be good for the United States, or even good for the president.
The military are certainly not convinced that war is a good idea. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff have made that clear through a series of leaks to the press. They are wary of a war whose objectives " beyond Saddam Hussein"s overthrow " remain murky, and for whose aftermath no serious policy exists¦.
Generals are against war, but amateurs are for it¦.
The hawks" scenarios of rebuilding a defeated Iraq (or Iran, and now Saudi Arabia) " "just as we rebuilt a democratic Germany and Japan after the second world war" " reek of amateurism and ignorance of what actually went on then, and during the war, in Germany and Japan¦.
A measure of consolation for what the Bush people are up to can be sought in what Walter Lippmann once wrote: "A policy is bound to fail which deliberately violates our pledges and our principles, our treaties and our laws. The American conscience is a reality."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brent Scowcroft
National Security Adviser to Presidents Ford and Bush I
Wall Street Journal Editorial Page " August 15, 2002
DON"T ATTACK SADDAM " IT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR ANTITERROR EFFORTS
¦There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam"s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them¦.
The central point is that any campaign against Iraq¦is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Salman Rushdie
Washington Post Editorial Page " August 28, 2002
DOUBLE STANDARDS MAKE ENEMIES
¦After the brief flirtation with consensus-building during the Afghan operation, the United States" brazen return to unilateralism has angered even its natural allies. The Republican grandee James Baker has warned President Bush not to go it alone, at least in the little matter of effecting a "regime change" in Iraq¦.
It is in Iraq that George W. Bush may be about to make his biggest mistake, and to unleash a generation-long plague of anti-Americanism that could make the present epidemic look like a time of rude good health¦.
¦If, in the present highly charged atmosphere, the United States does embark on the huge, risky military operation suggested Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney, then the result may very well be the creation of that united Islamic force that was bin Laden"s dream¦.
The entire Arab world would be radicalized and destabilized. What a disastrous twist of fate it would be if the feared Islamic jihad were brought into being not by the al Qaeda gang but by the president of the United States and his close advisers¦.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jimmy Carter
Washington Post Editorial Page " September 5, 2002
THE TROUBLING NEW FACE OF AMERICA
¦The American people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president and other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq"s weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or without support from our allies. As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad. In the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent move by Hussein against a neighbor¦would be suicidal¦.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Benjamin
National Security Council, 1994-1999
New York Times Editorial Page " September 30, 2002
SADDAM HUSSEIN AND AL QAEDA ARE NOT ALLIES
¦Iraq and al Qaeda are not obvious allies. In fact, they are natural enemies¦.
To contemporary jihadists, Saddam Hussein is another in a line of dangerous secularists, an enemy of the faith who refuses to rule by Shariah and has habitually murdered Sunni and Shiite religious leaders in Iraq who oppose his regime¦.
Like other Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam Hussein has long recognized that al Qaeda and like-minded Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has shown no interest in working with them against their common enemy, the United States. This was the understanding of American intelligence in the 1990"s. In 1998, the National Security Council assigned staff to determine whether that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all the available intelligence that could have pointed to a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, the group found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship¦.
¦It is also worth considering how a war in Iraq might further the jihadist cause. With his regime threatened, Mr. Hussein might break the taboo on giving terrorists weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, as images of the United States attacking another Muslim nation are beamed throughout the Middle East and South Asia, many will take it as confirmation of Mr. bin Laden"s argument that America is at war with Islam¦.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Greg Miller and Bob Drogin
Los Angeles Times " October 11, 2002
ANALYSTS REPORTED PRESSED BY PENTAGON TO BUILD CASE FOR WAR
...In what sources described as an escalating "war", top officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts with criticism and calls for revisions on such key questions as whether Iraq has ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network, sources said¦.
"Analysts feel more politicized and more pushed than many of them can ever remember," said one intelligence official¦. "The guys at the Pentagon shriek on issues such as the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. There has been a lot of pressure to write on this constantly, and to not let it drop."¦
White House hawks have shown a tendency for stretching the case against Iraq. Wolfowitz and others have clung to claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague last year even though the CIA has viewed the report with deep skepticism¦.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
George Bisharat
Law Professor - Hastings College of Law, San Francisco
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Page - February 13, 2003
IMPENDING WAR ON IRAQ " AMERICAN JIHAD
¦The real reason we are going to war is the messianic vision of a small but influential group of strongly pro-Israeli hawks within the Bush administration. Their goal is unilateral global domination through absolute military superiority. U.S. global hegemony will "promote democracy" and "spread prosperity" through free enterprise and trade.
But the hawks" almost theological obsession with Iraq still needs explaining. The evidence in support of the "Iraqi threat" to America is palpably thin. Whether or not Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, for years he has been safely contained by the threat of nuclear retaliation.
The hawks recognize this evidentiary weakness, and have aggressively pursued the CIA to cook its reports to support war. Douglas Feith¦oversees an amateur intelligence unit inside the Department of Defense that equips Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld with unconfirmed, professionally substandard information¦to contest less gung-ho CIA reports. It has reportedly pressed especially hard to generate evidence of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection¦.
Why the determination to overthrow the Iraqi regime? One key is the special regard of the hawks for Israel"s right-wing elements. A number of senior Bush officials, including Wolfowitz, Feith and others, have strong affiliations with the Likud Party of Ariel Sharon¦.
Does this mean that we are going to war for Israel, rather than the United States?... (The hawks) would not stop at Iraq. Instead, Iraq is just a first step in redrawing the map of the entire Middle East¦.
This rosy vision of a revolutionized Middle East overlooks immense risks. Most obviously, a return to colonialism in the Arab world is almost certainly a formula for perpetual war " Osama bin Laden"s dream. Many of us in the anti-war demonstration in San Francisco " including supporters of Israel who carried the Israeli flag " demur from this American jihad. We have very little time to stop it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Zbigniew Brzezinski
National Security Adviser to President Carter
Washington Post Editorial Page - February 19, 2003
WHY UNITY IS ESSENTIAL
¦The manner in which the U.S. defined its "war on terrorism" has struck many abroad as excessively theological ("evildoers who hate freedom") and unrelated to any political context. The evident reluctance to see a connection between Middle Eastern terrorists and the political problems of the Middle East fueled suspicions that the United States was exploiting the campaign against terrorism largely for political and regional ends. Moreover, the increasingly shrill but unsubstantiated efforts to connect Iraq with al Qaeda have also given rise to the question of whether that alleged¦linkage is the reason for U.S. policy or, increasingly, the result of it¦.
The European press has commented more widely than the U.S. press on the striking similarity between current U.S. policies in the Middle East and the recommendations prepared in 1996 by several American admirers of Israel"s Likud Party for the then-prime minister Netanyahu.
That these admirers are now occupying positions of influence in the administration is seen as the reason the United States is so eager to wage war against Iraq, so willing to accept the scuttling of the Oslo peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and so abrupt in rejecting European urgings for joint U.S.-European initiatives to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians¦.

The war is absolutely a mistake. We responded to the deadliest single attack on American soil in our nation's history by invading the wrong stinkin' country, period.

Check out http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com and you'll see what I mean.

Shouldn't have gone to war NO S##t Sherlock.

I think at this point, the neo-conned minions would like to believe it was "a mistake" to invade and occupy Iraq, but those actions were taken by the administration with full knowledge and malice aforethought. Virtually ALL of the consequences of Bush's disaster were well known long before those orders were given. That's what the record has already shown for years. And the preposterous and false notion that it was merely an error, a miscalculation on the part of the planners, is just so much smoke and mirrors after the fact.

What they've wrought cannot be hidden, denied away or justified by claims of having made a "mistake", and every feeble excuse proffered by any party-before-country Republicans will ring as hollow as any assertions like, " ... since we're already there, we might as well make the best of it. We owe it to the Iraqis for fucking things up."

Bullshit.

8

I'm sorry troops and families - the war was a mistake - my bad.

Well spoken from a man who never served one day in uniform for his country. Mr Coburn had multiple deferments. We need to heed the word of a man like him. He helps define the modus operandi of right wing war mongers. Live a life of avoiding military service but then advocate for war. How did we let the weasels run the chicken coop? Republicans are cowards who in their own minds are Rambos.

Ya think, Tom?

Idiot

PROBABLY???? WTF?

"probably" a mistake?

What a weasel.

Another international criminal confessess to his illegal vote to attack Iraq based on fraudulent information cooked up by bush and his new american century pals
Nuremburg Indictment to follow???? Not in this America!
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/